Qudos Mutual Limited v Infosys Limited [2019] FCA 702

Qudos Mutual Limited v Infosys Limited [2019] FCA 702

Qudos established it did not have sufficient information to decide whether to start proceedings for copyright infringement, breach of contract, or breach of confidence. The documents sought, as confined by the court, were directly relevant and necessary, and the court granted preliminary discovery under r 7.23(1), but limited to production code and development documents from the relevant period. The broader, prolix categories initially proposed were rejected as oppressive and unnecessary.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 May 2019
Procedural Posture
Application for Preliminary Discovery / Judgment on Application for Preliminary Discovery Under R 7.23 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (cth)
Outcome
Application granted in part; preliminary discovery ordered against Infosys Limited; dismissed against Infosys Technologies Australia Pty Limited.
Legal Topics
['preliminary Discovery' 'copyright Infringement' 'breach of Confidence' 'breach of Contract' 'discovery Procedure']
['intellectual Property' 'practice and Procedure'] ['preliminary Discovery' 'copyright Infringement' 'breach of Confidence' 'breach of Contract' 'discovery Procedure']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Preliminary Discovery / Judgment on Application for Preliminary Discovery Under R 7.23 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (cth)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Qudos is entitled to preliminary discovery under r 7.23 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth)' 'Whether Qudos already had sufficient information to decide whether to start a proceeding' 'Whether the scope of documents sought was appropriate or oppressive']

Ratio Decidendi

Qudos established it did not have sufficient information to decide whether to start proceedings for copyright infringement, breach of contract, or breach of confidence. The documents sought, as confined by the court, were directly relevant and necessary, and the court granted preliminary discovery under r 7.23(1), but limited to production code and development documents from the relevant period. The broader, prolix categories initially proposed were rejected as oppressive and unnecessary.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part; preliminary discovery ordered against Infosys Limited; dismissed against Infosys Technologies Australia Pty Limited.

Orders

  • ['Infosys Limited to produce the source code of the Qudos UAT site and the AMB UX code as at 19 February 2018, and related development documents as described; submissions on costs and compliance timelines to be filed as per the timetable in the judgment; application against Infosys Technologies Australia Pty Limited...